ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
But that's the point. Your addiction to watching Coronation St is self-evidently learned and nothing to do with your or your mother's genes. How could it not be learned since Coronation St is a product of culture not biology. But, I agree, mockery is the only way to deal with the prosperous claim that television watching is inherited genetically.
Quote:Once we accept that basically everything—not only schizophrenia and intelligence, but also marital status and television watching—is heritable ,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2899491/If you accept that marital status and television watching are heritable you'll accept anything.
Not really. We've heard these predictions of growing mass unemployment before but they've not materialised. There was an article in last month's Socialist Standard that touched on this:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1338-february-2016/cooking-books-who-owns-machinesIn particular this passage:
Quote:How likely anyway is the first scenario of growing mass unemployment? This has been predicted many times but has never actually come about. Production and employment have continued to expand over time, even if in fits and starts. The growth in productivity resulting from mechanisation is not as fast as is often thought, only of the order of 1 to 2 percent a year; which is slow enough to allow the labour displaced to be reabsorbed in other activities (including machine building).Also, if increasing mechanisation were to lead to steadily growing unemployment this would have the effect of slowing down the introduction of machines. The mass unemployment would exert a strong downward pressure on wages and make it profitable for the machine-owners to employ workers rather than machines.A minor example was reported in the Times (14 December):‘Garage owners said that the number of car-washing machines has more than halved in the past 15 years because they are struggling to compete with migrants doing the job by hand…. [T]he number of automated “rollover” car washes in Britain has more than halved, from about 9,000 to less than 4,200 in 2015. It is estimated that the number of dedicated handwashing sites has ballooned from 4,000 to at least 20,000 over the same 15-year period.’So, while the effect of mechanisation under capitalism might not be as bad as some predict, the full benefits of it will not be able to be enjoyed until the machines are owned in common by society as a whole. Then, and only, then will they be able to be used to turn out plenty for all, to be distributed in accordance with the principle of ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’..
Meel wrote:Do you think such a basic income for all employees would lead to employers lowering the wages they pay?Yes, of course, though this would more probably take the form of wages rising less than inflation, i.e less than they otherwise would, rather than an outright cut in money-wages.There's more on this on the other, long-running thread here on this reformist proposal:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/left-and-right-unite-ubi-fight
alanjjohnstone wrote:An ideal opportunity to write a reply to a letter by a Oliver Healey in this weeks WW on 100% reserve banking and banks creating money http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1096/letters/Scroll down to the letter here headed "It's the System:http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1097/letters/
See chapter 2 of this pamphlet of ours:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/are-we-prisoners-our-genesI think the term "Neo-Darwinism" might be being used in two different senses here. Perhaps "Neo-Social-Darwinism" might be a better name for one of them.
That we are contesting and the names of our candidates are announced here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Assembly_election,_2016
Quote:If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost. AristotleI'm intrigued by this quote which seems to suggest that Aristotle was a supporter of democracy as "rule by the people" whereas he wasn't:http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/greekfeatures/a/democracyaristl.htmI don't doubt the quote is genuine but I've not been able to find the source (not that I've tried very hard) since the context would be relevant to what he might have meant. I suppose he is saying that if you are in favour of democracy (which he wasn't) this would be the best form (even though he doubted it was practicablel). Having said that, while it might not have been practicable in his day, that doesn't mean it isn't today. Hence the popularity of the quote today.
Not been following this thread but this might (or might not) be of some relevance:http://www.sapiens.org/body/early-humans-and-raw-meat/At least it gives some comfort to us omnivores, not that I fancy eating raw meat.
Andrew Neil was much less harsh on him than he was on us, but I suppose he was giving him enough rope. That wouldn't work with us so he used mockery instead.
Similar quotable quotes can be found in Ernst Mandel though not in Trotsky himself (I'm convinced that he couldn't see any difference between state capitalism and socialism).
Cannon wrote:Emerging from capitalism, the transitional society, will carry over some capitalist methods of accounting, incentives, and rewards. People first will work for wages. They will be paid in money, backed by the gold in Fort Knox, for the amount of work performed.This shows Cannon's dogmatism as it reflects Trotsky's call in his The Revolution Betrayed (1936) for a gold-based rouble to be introduced in Stalin's Russia. What is odd is that Cannon should have written this in 1953 at a time when even capitalist states had abandoned backing their currencies by gold (though the gold exchange standard for international trade still continued for another 18 years).I don't suppose there are many Trotskyists today who envisage a gold-backed currency in the early stages of their so-called "transitional society" (i.e a state capitalism ruled by their vanguard party) but you never know. There might be a Trotskyist sect somewhere that still clings to this.
Actually, as Trotskyoids go, Shactmann and Draper weren't too bad. Both rejected the nonsense, endorsed by Trotsky himself, that Russia was some kind of "Workers State". Shactmann argued that it was a new exploitative class society (which he called "bureaucratic collectivism"). Draper recognised that it was a form of state capitalism.In 1962 Draper wrote an article on "Marx and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" which we recommended in one of our pamphlets. The article can be found here:https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1962/xx/dictprolet.htmland our reference to it is in this chapter of our 1978 (and 1969) edition pamphlet Questions of the Day::http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/questions-day#Marx_dictate
I think this cloak and dagger stuff will have to do with the fact that the AWL is try to re-enter the Labour Party and the Labour Party is trying to stop this:http://www.workersliberty.org/node/26346But Trotskyist entryist groups are nothing if not persistent. Having said that, I'm sure there'll be some Labour Party local officials who won't mind for the time being extra help in distributing their leaflets for the coming elections. According to the link, one of the AWLers expelled was told about this when she was out canvassing for Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London.
So, Tim, although Reich's theory was wrong he was on the right track: an authoritarian personality (or not) does depend on the way you're brought up. But is there any evidence that authoritarians can be persuaded to support non-authoritarian solutions? Hopefully yes.
Thanks. Interesting and rather disturbing, especially the bit about fear (real or imagined) pushing the non-authoritatian to vote for authoritarian leaders and actions.It still leaves open the question of why some have authoritarian personalities. The way they were brought up?Also, in a UK context, would seem to explain more why people vote UKIP. After all, Cameron is hardly a strong Leader. But then neither is Farage.This article might also interest those following the Trump for President thread.
